Lanercost House - Carlyle Suite

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
Staff told us they were kept up to date with people’s needs through daily handovers and felt they had enough time to read and understand care plans. This helped them provide care that was consistent and responsive to people’s changing needs.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service to ensure the provider could meet those needs. Pre-admission assessments were completed and involved people and, where appropriate, their relatives.

Relatives told us they were involved in the admission and care planning process, which helped ensure people’s needs and preferences were understood from the start. One relative told us, “I was involved initially when the care plan was created. We have a meeting imminently to review the care plan.”

Whilst we found most people’s pre-admission assessments translated well into care plans, some information was contradictory or inaccurate. The provider acted on these inconsistencies immediately.
 

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s nutritional needs were understood and supported. The kitchen maintained clear information about individuals’ dietary requirements, including modified diets and personal preferences. Menus offered a variety of choices, including alternative options, and people were offered snacks and drinks throughout the day to support their nutritional intake.

We saw good examples of joined-up, evidence-based care. One person who had experienced weight loss following ill health was supported through a coordinated approach involving a dietician, GP and their family. This led to improved outcomes, including weight gain, increased energy and an improvement in their overall wellbeing.

Feedback about the food was mixed. Some relatives felt the food options did not always suit their family member’s preferences, while others were positive about the choice and quality provided. Health professionals spoke positively about staff support, with one telling us, “I see them engaging with people and encouraging and assisting them to eat and drink”.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they worked well together and communicated effectively. One staff member told us, “Everyone supports each other and we have a really good team dynamic.” Leaders and staff shared important information about people’s care through clinical meetings and daily handovers.

Health professionals spoke positively about how the service worked in partnership with them. One told us, “They try their best by their patients and do work with the [health professional] team, even though there have been some challenges, we have spoken about them together and the working relationship continues to be a good one.”

We also saw positive outcomes for people as a result of effective joint working. One health professional told us, “I've seen people move into the suite quite agitated and heightened but after a while in the Carlyle suite, they become calm and settled because [staff] are responsive to their needs.”
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives.
Relatives told us people were supported to attend health appointments and reviews. One relative said, “They are really good at responding to problems as they arise. They don’t wait around. They react right away.”

The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. One health professional told us, “Referrals to our service appear to be made in a timely manner, ensuring that the patient’s needs are being met.”

Staff encouraged people to be involved in managing their own health and wellbeing as much as possible. This included offering choice, explaining care and supporting people to make decisions. We observed staff encouraging people to move around, stay active and take part in activities that promoted their wellbeing.

People also had access during the day to a safe and secure garden area. The provider had plans to further develop this space, including creating a social area in preparation for events such as the football World Cup, to encourage people to spend time outdoors and take part in shared activities.

People’s emotional wellbeing was also supported. We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and respectful way, taking time to offer reassurance and support when needed.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support continuous improvement. Systems were in place to help ensure outcomes were positive, consistent and met both clinical expectations and people’s own preferences.

Care plans were detailed and focused on outcomes, clearly reflecting people’s wishes and preferences. We saw positive examples where targeted support had made a difference. For example, a person received focused intervention to support specific behaviours, which resulted in reduced distress, improved skin integrity and fewer incidents.

Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing on an ongoing basis and responded appropriately to any changes. Referrals to health professionals were made in a timely way, helping to ensure people received the support they needed and reducing the risk of deterioration.

Records such as oral health care plans clearly outlined people’s individual needs.

Incidents were clearly recorded, reviewed and used to drive learning and improvement.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Systems were in place to support people to make decisions about their care.

Where people were able to give consent, this was clearly recorded. Where they were not able to consent, capacity assessments were completed and decisions were made in their best interests, involving relatives and professionals where appropriate.

Relatives told us the provider respected people’s choices. One relative told us, “They have a public Facebook group. A while ago now [we] decided that my [relative] would not be comfortable in being on a public forum and having [their] photo displayed there. We wrote to [Carlyle Suite] advising them that we were withdrawing support and outlining our reason for doing so. They were lovely. They said, absolutely we understand and there has not been one photo posted since then.”